| Author |
Message |
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
 Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | My mistake.
In any event, doesn't any stick or staff have "two ends"?
And what does any of this have to do with supposed "great stick" use in Elizabethan London "Prize Playing" competitions? |
Yes indeed, so that could be anything frankly. Well the point I made was that prize playing wasn't done with all weapons, as was the case with the halberd and the baton à deux bouts, which I suppose were then considered too dangerous for plays, like the french baton, shillelagh, bastone is still considered today. Now some systems have incorporated them in competitive encounters like liu bo and jogo do pau, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about those two to speak about the how.
| Quote: | | I have already mentioned the French and Italian use of the "great stick" in the 19th century. |
You said it was a unique characteristic of french and Italian armies, I showed it had much more profound roots. But no matter it doesn't have much to do with the present debate.
| Quote: | | Karate was a striking system from the start. Some modern karateka speak of supposed grappling "hidden within the kata", but nobody made such claims until grappling became popular again, with the advent of modern MMA. |
I take you haven't read the article I posted, I'll do it again then: http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=77 . It was part of it. Like I said they quite simply rejected it because they thought judo already covered all that. Now we have judoka who can't strike and karateka who can't wrestle. Were does the problem come from?
| Quote: | | Boxing is an integral part of MMA; karate cannot make that same claim. |
i would say it would have more to do with what is popular right now and what is taught in MMA academies, if you have a high percentage of people in those competition training in boxing and Muay Thai and a low one doing karate, well the probabilities are against the latter. Cause frankly I cannot see many things that are done in boxing and Muay Thai who don't have their equivalent in karate. In K1 for example, karate, boxing and Muay Thai are regularly put together with mixed results. So the superiority of one over another has nothing to do since they can and do beat each other without grappling (although from what I get boxing has a hard time with the lack of kicks, I remember a fight while i was in Japan between a kick boxer and a boxer. The latter lowered himself to avoid a punch. A good thing to do in boxing since there isn't much punches that can get you there, but not when your face is directly in front of a kick boxer's knee... who effectively ended the fight). Logic would dictate that the same would apply to UFC or the like. Here's an example of shotokan used in MMA by Chinzon the brother of Lyota Machida (also someone who successfully fights in MMA with a shotokan background): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4L4jDitr8o
| Quote: | | I "categorize" HEMA as a combat sport, because folks don't fight with swords these days--that's plain as night and day, Max. Combat sport practitioners can (and do) train in earnest, but there certainly aren't any modern sword practitioners today who are using those skills in earnest. |
Okok, wait a minute.... You say it is a sport because it's not really practiced for being efficient in reality (or if it is it can't)... Isn't that the distinction I already gave? The goal? 
| Quote: | That simply isn't true.
Once again, your are trying to impress your notion of what defines a "combat sport", onto the rest of us. |
Well I may be guilty of trying to convince you, but I won't force you to accept it. On the other hand you're not making much arguments other than questioning the veracity of something.
| Quote: | | Jigoro Kano combined the best of the various classical jujutsu schools into a new system (Kano Ryu Jujutsu, aka Judo), and combined that with the combat sport training methodology. The Kodokan showed the superiority of judo during the Tokyo Police Tournament of 1886, when judoka consistently defeated jujutsuka from various classical schools--so once again, the superiority of the combat sport training methodology was shown. |
Oh I never said the training regimen couldn't be ameliorated. Visibly Judo trained it's exponents much more than other styles did. Many classical jujutsu styles practice active randori much like judo today, but they still keep the techniques who aren't applicable. And keep in mind that Judo was a very very different beast back then. Following Kano's death, many changes were made that he would never have accepted.
| Quote: | | On the contrary--the practitioners of the combat sports always had the right idea--use "live" training, and have competition to hone the attributes necessary to apply techniques, and thus increase the talent pool of a given art/system. |
You're at it again... I'm not saying that live training was bad. But by putting too much emphasis on competition, safety and showmanship they took out a whole part of their martial heritage that they are now trying to reconstruct. Do you agree with this? If not then you don't agree with what is necessarily done in MMA?
You are arguing that combat sports had a good effects on martial arts because they suceeded in MMA, although never by their own. I'm arguing that combat sports have put too much emphasis on competition within their specialised rule systems, which created gaps that now have to be filled, and maybe wouldn't had been in need of such a transplant if they didn't let some of their curriculum go much before, like was the case with nearly every combat sport there is.
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
   |
 |
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: |
As far as I know, "great stick" didn't even exist yet--that was a 19th century invention, used by the French and Italian Armies as an adjunct to bayonet training (see Alfred Hutton's Cold Steel).
|
I've found no evidence before Hutton for the term "great stick" but I think we can safely say that 5 foot long fighting sticks were not invented in the 19th century. Similar sized long sticks (Pau, Palo, Bastone, Baton etc) and civilian "long stick" arts predate the Victorians. Jogo do Pau, Juego del Palo, Bastone Siciliano and Bastone Genovese (which is associated with a "Dance of the Bastone" dating from 1422 IIRC) all predate Hutton's Italian and French inspired Victorian method. It should hardly be surprising that the European "great stick" methods adopted by some European militaries in the 19th century had been in use by civilians (e.g. shepherds, farmers, villagers etc) long before that.
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
 |
|
|
Max Chouinard
Location: Quebec, Qc Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What are the differences in basic punches, punch defenses, of Karate vs the basic punches/ punch defenses and boxing? Or Kung Fu, or any other art that involves the basic punches?
At the basic level, they are very similar. Again, because the human body can only throw a punch so many ways.
To say boxing is the only art that people are using the ring for stand up striking, is like saying that a certain sword swing was created by the japanese can only be done by the japanese, and if a western swordsman uses a similar swing with a long sword, that he must know JSA, even if he's never seen JSA before. I hope that makes sense,... might be alittle overly worded. |
Good point. Bare knuckle boxing has a lot of techniques which are nearly the same as most asian martial arts. While the advent of boxing gloves changed this because boxers realised they could take profit of the gloves protective capabilities while striking and blocking.
| Quote: | | I've found no evidence before Hutton for the term "great stick" but I think we can safely say that 5 foot long fighting sticks were not invented in the 19th century. Similar sized long sticks (Pau, Palo, Bastone, Baton etc) and civilian "long stick" arts predate the Victorians. Jogo do Pau, Juego del Palo, Bastone Siciliano and Bastone Genovese (which is associated with a "Dance of the Bastone" dating from 1422 IIRC) all predate Hutton's Italian and French inspired Victorian method. It should hardly be surprising that the European "great stick" methods adopted by some European militaries in the 19th century had been in use by civilians (e.g. shepherds, farmers, villagers etc) long before that. |
That's the point I was trying to make, thanks William.
| Quote: | | Please use caution in your analysis of HEMA/WMA as combat sports. What you say would hold true if these included only swordsmanship, but that certainly isn't true. There's absolutely no reason why the ringen/dagger components of the German arts, as a for instance, couldn't be used for modern-day self defense. And, even the sword portions of the arts can be adapted easily for situations not involving swords. |
That's also a good point Christian. What would you personally make of the difference between combat sports and martial arts?
Maxime Chouinard
Antrim Bata
Quebec City Kenjutsu
I don't do longsword
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | What would you personally make of the difference between combat sports and martial arts? |
Funny, we had some lengthy argument on a French forum just about this some months ago...
For me a martial art is based on a theory of real combat. Something build on the observation of many real fights, giving guidelines that make it possible to analyze the chaos of combat, rules that allow us to influence the outcome of combat, hopefully to our advantage Along with a martial art there is normally a pedagogy coming along, a group of exercises that allows the teaching and ingraining of the underlying theory.
These exercises happen to have other benefits, mental and physical, than the pure effectiveness in combat. This is why we are still practicing martial arts that use outdated weapons, fo example. As such, martial arts are sports of course... But these exercises are not real combat generally, and often cannot be; as soon as weapons are involved it's not really possible to train as if for real without casualities, and even empty hand martial arts have plenty fo exercises that are not real combat. That is why, as far as I know, most ancient system of sparring have rules that are far more limiting than what we judge realistic today: right of way in fencing, rules in kendo, the fencing guild rules Matt Galas unearthed... They are necessary to keep the fighters within the combat theory that lies at the basis of the art.
Some of the exercises are practiced in opposition, but are not as risky as fighting for real, and they allow for a competition. It's these exercises that often turn into combat sports. Only, combat sport finally forgets all link to the real combat. Instead of building a theory of the real fight, they build a theory of the simulated fight. In general these theories have overlapping principles, but there are of course things that exist only in either... And since generally only one of the exercises is kept, combat sports are more focused on one single aspect.
Of course practicing a combat sport gives you a great advantage in a real fight. But it's not the end of all, especially not in weapon arts. In bare hand fights you can get realtively realistic because the ways to win the real fight are not immediately lethal at least with two trained opponents (basically you can recover from a KO as long as there are no further blows and you can quit before irreversible damage in a submission). With weapons we cannot get any close to this physical realism. We can try to be in the right mindset but it's not the same. It's exactly as if we were training MMA without ever hitting, without any locks...
Even with bare hands, in my limited knowledge MMA is more "sportified" than the original UFC was, in particular I don't remember there were rounds in UFC?
That's why we need manuals in WMA to teach us the theory we are trying to train in. With pure sparring we cannot get so far, we'd only build a theory of simulated combat, i.e. at best a combat sport. And actually, in my opinion, keeping just the safety rules is not the right thing to do; we'd have to keep safety rules, of course, plus additional rules to ensure that realistic techniques are successful (exactly as it seems it has been done historically).
To sum it up, in my opinion:
- Martial art = theory of real combat, practice of simulated combats (i.e. different exercises)
- Combat sport = theory and practice of simulated combat (only one)
Thoughts?
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | Quote: | My mistake.
In any event, doesn't any stick or staff have "two ends"?
And what does any of this have to do with supposed "great stick" use in Elizabethan London "Prize Playing" competitions? |
Yes indeed, so that could be anything frankly. Well the point I made was that prize playing wasn't done with all weapons, as was the case with the halberd and the baton à deux bouts, which I suppose were then considered too dangerous for plays, like the french baton, shillelagh, bastone is still considered today. Now some systems have incorporated them in competitive encounters like liu bo and jogo do pau, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about those two to speak about the how. |
I see.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Karate was a striking system from the start. Some modern karateka speak of supposed grappling "hidden within the kata", but nobody made such claims until grappling became popular again, with the advent of modern MMA. |
I take you haven't read the article I posted, I'll do it again then: http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=77 . It was part of it. Like I said they quite simply rejected it because they thought judo already covered all that. Now we have judoka who can't strike and karateka who can't wrestle. Were does the problem come from? |
I read the article. A few throws practiced in karate does not = grappling.
We must also consider that judo was introduced to Okinawa, c. 1900. So karateka had exposure to a genuine grappling system.
Even if we actually accept the claim that karate has grappling "hidden in kata", it's not doing any good there. You won't learn any method of fighting via kata.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Boxing is an integral part of MMA; karate cannot make that same claim. |
i would say it would have more to do with what is popular right now and what is taught in MMA academies, if you have a high percentage of people in those competition training in boxing and Muay Thai and a low one doing karate, well the probabilities are against the latter. |
It's not a question of "popularity", it's a question of what has been shown to actually work. Western boxing and muay Thai both work.
| Quote: | | Cause frankly I cannot see many things that are done in boxing and Muay Thai who don't have their equivalent in karate. |
Boxing and muay Thai are both very different than karate, in both technique and training methodology.
| Quote: | | In K1 for example, karate, boxing and Muay Thai are regularly put together with mixed results. So the superiority of one over another has nothing to do since they can and do beat each other without grappling |
Muay Thai typically dominates in kickboxing competitions.
As I already mentioned, I cannot currently view videos. 
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I "categorize" HEMA as a combat sport, because folks don't fight with swords these days--that's plain as night and day, Max. Combat sport practitioners can (and do) train in earnest, but there certainly aren't any modern sword practitioners today who are using those skills in earnest. |
Okok, wait a minute.... You say it is a sport because it's not really practiced for being efficient in reality (or if it is it can't)... Isn't that the distinction I already gave? The goal? |
In the case of HEMA swordfighting, yeah, it qualifies as a combat sport because nobody actually fights with swords these days.
That doesn't mean that other combat sports don't have practical application. Boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, judo, sambo, BJJ, etc., all have application in unarmed self-defense. Armed combat sports like the Dog Brothers Real Contact Stickfighting FMA group likewise have modern self-defense application. I don't include HEMA in this because HEMA arts are reconstructions, and mistakes have been made in those reconstructions. For self-defense, I personally prefer established systems, as opposed to modern experiments with long-dead methods.
| Quote: | | Quote: | That simply isn't true.
Once again, your are trying to impress your notion of what defines a "combat sport", onto the rest of us. |
Well I may be guilty of trying to convince you, but I won't force you to accept it. On the other hand you're not making much arguments other than questioning the veracity of something. |
My argument has been for the efficacy & practical application of combat sports, which has been questioned by the traditionalists and RBSD types--the advocates of "Three Stooges Fu", as I joked earlier. I have backed up my position with facts. Others have made unsubstantiated claims about certain arts. I stand by everything I have said.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Jigoro Kano combined the best of the various classical jujutsu schools into a new system (Kano Ryu Jujutsu, aka Judo), and combined that with the combat sport training methodology. The Kodokan showed the superiority of judo during the Tokyo Police Tournament of 1886, when judoka consistently defeated jujutsuka from various classical schools--so once again, the superiority of the combat sport training methodology was shown. |
Oh I never said the training regimen couldn't be ameliorated. Visibly Judo trained it's exponents much more than other styles did. Many classical jujutsu styles practice active randori much like judo today, but they still keep the techniques who aren't applicable. And keep in mind that Judo was a very very different beast back then. Following Kano's death, many changes were made that he would never have accepted. |
Judo prior to 1925 bore a rather close resemblance to BJJ. Groundwork--ostensibly taken from the Fusen ryu--was incorporated in the judo syllabus c. 1900-1905, and from that point until the mid-1920s, ne-waza dominated the action. This was the form of judo (blended with some catch wrestling) that Mitsuyo Maeda brought to Brazil, and which ultimately became Brazilian jiu-jitsu.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | On the contrary--the practitioners of the combat sports always had the right idea--use "live" training, and have competition to hone the attributes necessary to apply techniques, and thus increase the talent pool of a given art/system. |
You're at it again... I'm not saying that live training was bad. But by putting too much emphasis on competition, safety and showmanship they took out a whole part of their martial heritage that they are now trying to reconstruct. Do you agree with this? |
No, I do not.
Competition is an essential quality for a fighting art. By competing against others, fighters improve.
| Quote: | | If not then you don't agree with what is necessarily done in MMA? |
The goal of modern MMA is to essentially revive the pankration of Ancient Greece--i.e., the "All Powers" unarmed combat of striking & grappling, both standing and on the ground.
The more limited combat sports like wrestling, boxing, etc., still very much have their place.
| Quote: | | You are arguing that combat sports had a good effects on martial arts because they suceeded in MMA, although never by their own. |
No, that's not what I'm arguing.
I have argued that combat sports succeeded in earlier NHB competitions (BJJ, anyone?), and that NHB has now evolved from the "Style vs. Style" format to an "All Powers"/pankration format, and combat sports STILL dominate.
| Quote: | | I'm arguing that combat sports have put too much emphasis on competition within their specialised rule systems, which created gaps that now have to be filled, and maybe wouldn't had been in need of such a transplant if they didn't let some of their curriculum go much before, like was the case with nearly every combat sport there is. |
Spoken like a true traditionalist.
Like I said, we just come from totally different schools of thought, Max.
Peace,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi David,
Please use caution in your analysis of HEMA/WMA as combat sports. What you say would hold true if these included only swordsmanship, but that certainly isn't true. There's absolutely no reason why the ringen/dagger components of the German arts, as a for instance, couldn't be used for modern-day self defense. And, even the sword portions of the arts can be adapted easily for situations not involving swords.
All the best,
Christian |
Hi Christian,
I already gave my reason for my reservations about HEMA methods for modern self-defense purposes, but I posted before I read your post, so I'll reiterate--being that the HEMA styles are reconstructions of long-dead systems, I personally don't feel comfortable advocating them for modern self-defense. I'm not saying that there isn't anything in the old manuals that cannot be used today, but these arts are still imperfectly understood. Modern HEMA researchers and practitioners are constantly revising their interpretations, and it's not as if we have the Old Masters themselves, to speak to us and show us what is correct, and what isn't. Therefore, when it comes to HEMA/WMA, I personally prefer existing methods/surviving traditions, eg., classical fencing, catch wrestling, etc.
Best Regards,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | Dave -
-"San shou winning some MMA tournaments (and Nathan made a great point about the majority of Le's opponents being "cans"). San shou is not pure "kung-fu"--not by a long shot. Notice how Le's Greco-Roman background comes up in virtually every interview/article on him? The Western wrestling that he has done (that you have repeatedly dismissed) has clearly added to his arsenal."-
I'm not dimissing his western wresting, I know it's there. All I am saying is that his traditional Kung Fu back ground, his kicks, etc.. is what won his MMA matches thus far. He used no grappling, nor any non chinese anti grappling moves. And took out, not just a top 20 competitor, but THE TOP competitor, using nothing but kicks, and hits. So it's clear that those techniques used are effective. |
So, he's won against a bunch of "cans", and one high-level MMA guy who chose to play his opponent's game (very foolish on Shamrock's part, but he always struck me as a cocky fellow).
In the wide world of MMA, that frankly doesn't say much for kung-fu, does it?
Speaking of kung-fu, here's a clip of some old kung-fu prior to the Cultural Revolution--Tai Chi grandmaster Ng vs. White Crane grandmaster Chan, in Macau in 1954:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1KQefb7UnU
It's been a long time since I've seen this film, but I recall it being really bad--a classic example of that FUNCTIONAL DILUTION I spoke of earlier on this thread.
| Quote: | -"Boxing is an integral part of MMA; karate cannot make that same claim."-
What are the differences in basic punches, punch defenses, of Karate vs the basic punches/ punch defenses and boxing? Or Kung Fu, or any other art that involves the basic punches? |
I don't see karateka throwing jabs, straight lefts, crosses, hooks, uppercuts, etc.
And I don't see boxers throwing reverse punches from the hip.
The only real "common ground" I can personally think of is the older style of "vertical fist"/"powerline" punching used by the bare-knuckle pugilists, and that was still taught to the early gloved boxers (Jack Dempsey mentioned it)--it looks like Wing Chun.
| Quote: | | At the basic level, they are very similar. Again, because the human body can only throw a punch so many ways. |
And boxing, muay Thai and karate all seem to have different ways of doing things. I already mentioned some differences above; for others, look at how Thai boxers throw their shin kicks, as opposed to the way roundhouses are thrown in karate, TKD, etc.
| Quote: | | To say boxing is the only art that people are using the ring for stand up striking, is like saying that a certain sword swing was created by the japanese can only be done by the japanese, and if a western swordsman uses a similar swing with a long sword, that he must know JSA, even if he's never seen JSA before. I hope that makes sense,... might be alittle overly worded. |
It's pretty obvious that the dominant striking arts are Western and Thai boxing. We don't see reverse punches ala shotokan, and we don't see tornado kicks, ala Northern Shaolin.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max Chouinard wrote: |
| Quote: | | Boxing is an integral part of MMA; karate cannot make that same claim. |
i would say it would have more to do with what is popular right now and what is taught in MMA academies, if you have a high percentage of people in those competition training in boxing and Muay Thai and a low one doing karate, well the probabilities are against the latter. Cause frankly I cannot see many things that are done in boxing and Muay Thai who don't have their equivalent in karate. |
But the fact was that up to the early 90's, karate, along with the other asian martial arts, was viewed as superior to boxing and wrestling due to aisan cinema and stereotypes. The fact that karatekas got consistantly dominated by boxers and grapplers is why those arts are popular in MMA academies now. It's also the reason why for every Machida (who has a solid boxing/grappling game btw) there are dozens of boxer/mauy thai/wrestler/bjj champions in MMA.
But hey, that's not such a bad thing. Maybe when karate is as old as boxing or wrestling it'll be as well developed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Fields
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave - I thought you couldn't watch videos?? ... I'm just teasing ya
Yeah, if that video is what you think Kung Fu is, I see why you say what you say. Those guys looks like a some high school girls slapping each other. And yes, it does show the dillution of many Kung Fu styles, those two inparticular.
You must realize though, that there are many who fought through the dillution to teach real self defense arts. These are the Kung Fu arts that compete in San Shou for last 200 years or so. And the group that Le started his San Shou career with come's from is one of these arts.
Basing your opinion of Kung Fu on that video would be the same as me basing my opinion of western wrestling on the WWF. I hope that makes my point clear.
-"So, he's won against a bunch of "cans", and one high-level MMA guy who chose to play his opponent's game (very foolish on Shamrock's part, but he always struck me as a cocky fellow).
In the wide world of MMA, that frankly doesn't say much for kung-fu, does it?"-
It says plenty enough to say that the techniques are effective, does it not? And remember, Cung Le is only one of the first to branch over to MMA (1st in UFC in particular) from San Shou, and I think we'll see many more do so due to his success. Realize that many other San Shou fighter have had success in shoot boxing and K-1, as is listing in the wikipedia entry I posted. Is San Shou better than MMA... no... is MMA better than San Shou... no.. you can take participants from each on any given day, and pit them against each other, and you'll see winners from both sides.
-"I don't see karateka throwing jabs, straight lefts, crosses, hooks, uppercuts, etc.
And I don't see boxers throwing reverse punches from the hip."-
If you don't see karate people throwing Jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts,, etc... then I'm not sure what karate people your watching... All of the karate people I know around here learn those basics at the very beginning, and always train them no matter how advanced they get. Remember, I am not a fan of Karate myself either, but proper Karate schools do teach this.
Punching from the hip.... that's one I'll never understand.... my guess is that it came about from some one who did it in a kata long ago for a demo, and everyone thought that was way to do it... silly , I agree with you on that one.
|
|
 |
|
|
Joe Maccarrone
Location: Burien, WA USA Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 190
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: |
You won't learn any method of fighting via kata.
|
I suppose it's just my imagination that I've successfully used techniques honed in kata during dozens of street fights...? (In answer to the obvious question: 15 years of police work.)
If what you mean by 'fighting' is competitive sport fighting, I've done a bit of that, and I'd agree that kata is not of great value there. However, that isn't my area of interest. I absolutely cannot train the techniques I'm going to use on the street against 'resistive' opponents, without someone getting injured.
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chris Fields wrote: | | Yeah, if that video is what you think Kung Fu is, I see why you say what you say. Those guys looks like a some high school girls slapping each other. And yes, it does show the dillution of many Kung Fu styles, those two inparticular. |
Well, there you go--there's your "street lethal" kung-fu in action.
There have been karate and kung-fu exponents who competed in the early NHB fights in the early 1990s, and they were routinely defeated. I remember one Wing Chun guy who put on a demo prior to his fight against samboist/judoka Igor ZInoviev, and his Wing Chun looked really good. As soon as he was up against the big Russian grappler, however, his Wing Chun went right out the window.
Speaking of Wing Chun, I recall a silly fight between two other masters--William Cheung, and a young Emin Boztepe. Boztepe jumped Cheung at the latter's seminar, in an effort to prove that Leung Ting's style of Wing Chun was superior to that of Cheung's. Well, Boztepe and Cheung ended up rolling around on the ground! Neither guy knew how to wrestle, and neither guy had any idea about positional strategy on the ground, submissions, etc. What a friggin' joke--they were fighting each other to prove who had better Wing Chun, and they ended up on the ground.
And I already mentioned those Hong Kong kung-fu masters who had their backsides handed to them by the Thais twice, in the early 1970s.
| Quote: | | You must realize though, that there are many who fought through the dillution to teach real self defense arts. These are the Kung Fu arts that compete in San Shou for last 200 years or so. |
Considering that san shou dates only from the 1920s, where are you getting this 200-year figure from?
| Quote: | | Basing your opinion of Kung Fu on that video would be the same as me basing my opinion of western wrestling on the WWF. I hope that makes my point clear. |
No, it isn't the same.
The two kung-fu masters from 1954 were ostensibly serious practitioners, whereas it's no secret that the WWF/WWE is little more than a "Redneck Soap Opera".
| Quote: | -"So, he's won against a bunch of "cans", and one high-level MMA guy who chose to play his opponent's game (very foolish on Shamrock's part, but he always struck me as a cocky fellow).
In the wide world of MMA, that frankly doesn't say much for kung-fu, does it?"-
It says plenty enough to say that the techniques are effective, does it not? And remember, Cung Le is only one of the first to branch over to MMA (1st in UFC in particular) from San Shou, and I think we'll see many more do so due to his success. |
Only if they're willing to learn the ground game--something we have yet to see from Chung Le himself.
| Quote: | | Realize that many other San Shou fighter have had success in shoot boxing and K-1, as is listing in the wikipedia entry I posted. Is San Shou better than MMA... no... is MMA better than San Shou... no.. you can take participants from each on any given day, and pit them against each other, and you'll see winners from both sides. |
Throw those san shou practitioners into MMA right now (i.e., without cross-training in groundwork), and watch what happens.
So no, MMA is more versatile than san shou.
| Quote: | -"I don't see karateka throwing jabs, straight lefts, crosses, hooks, uppercuts, etc.
And I don't see boxers throwing reverse punches from the hip."-
If you don't see karate people throwing Jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts,, etc... then I'm not sure what karate people your watching... All of the karate people I know around here learn those basics at the very beginning, and always train them no matter how advanced they get. Remember, I am not a fan of Karate myself either, but proper Karate schools do teach this. |
If they do, then their instructors must have cross-trained in boxing.
| Quote: | | Punching from the hip.... that's one I'll never understand.... my guess is that it came about from some one who did it in a kata long ago for a demo, and everyone thought that was way to do it... silly , I agree with you on that one. |
Fair enough.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Maccarrone wrote: | | David Black Mastro wrote: |
You won't learn any method of fighting via kata.
|
I suppose it's just my imagination that I've successfully used techniques honed in kata during dozens of street fights...? (In answer to the obvious question: 15 years of police work.)
If what you mean by 'fighting' is competitive sport fighting, I've done a bit of that, and I'd agree that kata is not of great value there. However, that isn't my area of interest. I absolutely cannot train the techniques I'm going to use on the street against 'resistive' opponents, without someone getting injured. |
Whether you're talking about "competitive sport fighting" or "street fighting", the simple fact remains that, in training, you need to work with resisting opponents. Kata obviously doesn't provide that.
So, since you claim that you "successfully used techniques honed in kata during dozens of street fights", I guess you can consider yourself extremely... fortunate.
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I already gave my reason for my reservations about HEMA methods for modern self-defense purposes, but I posted before I read your post, so I'll reiterate--being that the HEMA styles are reconstructions of long-dead systems, I personally don't feel comfortable advocating them for modern self-defense. I'm not saying that there isn't anything in the old manuals that cannot be used today, but these arts are still imperfectly understood. Modern HEMA researchers and practitioners are constantly revising their interpretations, and it's not as if we have the Old Masters themselves, to speak to us and show us what is correct, and what isn't. Therefore, when it comes to HEMA/WMA, I personally prefer existing methods/surviving traditions, eg., classical fencing, catch wrestling, etc. |
Right David - but that's a preference, and therefore not a scientific classification. The point is that those arts needn't be relegated to the past, however imperfect our current understanding is. And, surely, Classical Fencing isn't modern street defense.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
David Black Mastro
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Quote: | | I already gave my reason for my reservations about HEMA methods for modern self-defense purposes, but I posted before I read your post, so I'll reiterate--being that the HEMA styles are reconstructions of long-dead systems, I personally don't feel comfortable advocating them for modern self-defense. I'm not saying that there isn't anything in the old manuals that cannot be used today, but these arts are still imperfectly understood. Modern HEMA researchers and practitioners are constantly revising their interpretations, and it's not as if we have the Old Masters themselves, to speak to us and show us what is correct, and what isn't. Therefore, when it comes to HEMA/WMA, I personally prefer existing methods/surviving traditions, eg., classical fencing, catch wrestling, etc. |
Right David - but that's a preference, and therefore not a scientific classification. |
It's a preference that is scientifically motivated. Given the imperfect knowledge of these long-dead systems, it is thoroughly logical to approach their applicability to modern self-defence with a great deal of caution, to put it mildly.
| Quote: | | The point is that those arts needn't be relegated to the past, however imperfect our current understanding is. |
I never said anything about leaving these arts "relegated to the past", but I'm not going to advocate them for modern self-defense, either.
| Quote: | | And, surely, Classical Fencing isn't modern street defense. |
Classical fencing is a living tradition, and it certainly has a good deal of application, in terms of weapons use. The same can even be said of modern fencing, to a more limited degree (I earlier mentioned the beneficial overlap between fencing and the Filipino arts). Likewise, wrestling and boxing have their uses.
Best Regards,
David
"Why meddle with us--you are not strong enough to break us--you know that you have won the battle and slaughtered our army--be content with your honor, and leave us alone, for by God's good will only have we escaped from this business" --unknown Spanish captain to the Chevalier Bayard, at the Battle of Ravenna, 1512
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor Ellis
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lets take a closer look at Cung Le being the pin up boy for traditional Chinese martial arts being effective in modern MMA.
He was born in South Vietnam, emigrated to the US at age 10, where he took up tae kwon do (currently holds a black belt) and sanshou (sanshou according to Wikipedia, being a Chinese combat sport ). As previously mentioned he wrestled in high school and college, and went on to defeat Frank Shamrock earlier this year. Besides the fact Shamrock hasn't been a top middleweight for over 8 years (a lifetime in MMA), Le remains the only Chinese stylist (and a very, very eclectic and modern one at that) to have any success in MMA. When he takes out Anderson Silva or Georges St Pierre with traditional Chinese skills the MMA world will take notice. Until then...
I can understand that spending so much of ones life perfecting a particular discipline only to see it blown out of the water can be upsetting. The difference between the 2 schools of though Dave mentioned is one chooses to close their eyes, cover their ears and pretend its all ok, whilst the other gets out and fills the gaps in their skillset. Simple as that really.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi David!
| David Black Mastro wrote: | | It's a preference that is scientifically motivated. Given the imperfect knowledge of these long-dead systems, it is thoroughly logical to approach their applicability to modern self-defence with a great deal of caution, to put it mildly. |
I think training in arts with competition being the primary focus should be equal cause for caution, as I mentioned earlier in my contrasting of battle vs. competition groundfighting, which are vastly different animals. The intense focus on what's allowed in the ring also removes many critical real-life elements, like "what if he's armed?"
That said, your caution is reasonable. For that reason, I continue to feel it's important to cross-train and compare notes with other practitioners of extant arts.
| Quote: | | I never said anything about leaving these arts "relegated to the past", but I'm not going to advocate them for modern self-defense, either. |
Ok, fair enough - thanks for the clarification. I think it's unfortunate you feel that way, but I get where you're coming from. I do feel that you should do some training in these arts before solidifying such an opinion however, but that's your call.*
For me, given I train to move in a fashion demanded by the art I study, it makes no sense to train in an unarmed art using a different tactical, and likely kinesthetic, paradigm: training thrusts trains punches; training dagger blows teaches the hammer-fist strike; guard transitions are takedowns and throws, etc. etc. It's holistic.
| Quote: | | Classical fencing is a living tradition, and it certainly has a good deal of application, in terms of weapons use. The same can even be said of modern fencing, to a more limited degree (I earlier mentioned the beneficial overlap between fencing and the Filipino arts). Likewise, wrestling and boxing have their uses. |
I don't agree with regard to modern or Classical fencing, beyond the teaching of good carriage and tactical analysis. These do not teach the use of modern weapons, or weapons used in the fashion of modern weapons. The overarching problem with the applications of late systems of fence to self-defense is that they have ceased to be integrated arts, unlike their medieval and Renaissance forebearers; it can be done, but it's far from optimal.
I do agree about wrestling and boxing. If you do both of those, you're in a pretty good place, I feel. And that of course goes back pretty much to modern boxing's pugilism antecedents anyway.
All the best,
Christian
*That's a not-so-subtle invitation, btw - I'm in CT and you're in nearby NJ. You're more than welcome to stop in some time!
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Maccarrone
Location: Burien, WA USA Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 190
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Black Mastro wrote: |
So, since you claim that you "successfully used techniques honed in kata during dozens of street fights", I guess you can consider yourself extremely... fortunate. |
I'll consider myself experienced, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Max,
| Max Chouinard wrote: | | i would say it would have more to do with what is popular right now and what is taught in MMA academies, if you have a high percentage of people in those competition training in boxing and Muay Thai and a low one doing karate, well the probabilities are against the latter. |
I think this must, in part, be true, though clearly the MMA experience has revealed the holes in some arts. If you have an art that practices no grappling, there must be situations where that will be a detriment.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
JE Sarge
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Dec, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been watching this thread for a few days, pondering if there was anything that I could offer. I decided that I could.
I have been in the military since 1987 through different terms of enlistment and been employed in a law enforcement career since 1991; serving as a correctional officer, first time offender boot camp instructor, deputy sheriff, deputy investigator, and district attorney investigator. I have seen more than my share of confrontations as well as observing the confrontations of others.
But, does a training in a martial art make you an automatic master of real combat? No. Nothing can compare you for genuine combat for your survival because though you may have useful tools from martial arts, there are far too many undetermined factors. To think that because you have a black belt in TKD or won a sheild in the SCA that you will win a real fight is foolish. There are fear, weapons, your opponent's buddies, lighting, pain, surface, etc...its impossible to train in all of these factors. There is also point when animalistic drive takes over throwing your focus out the window, the adrenaline overloads your system, and you will do anything to survive as will your enemy. This is the part that martial arts cannot simulate - because you know at the base level in a martial arts competition that your opponent is not trying to kill you. Until you have experienced wrestling with a hispanic for your firearm the side of a bypass in the middle of the night without help from another officer or bashing the enemy in the face until he's dead with an LCH to keep him from getting the AK off the floor while clearing a house with your squad, you have not experienced combat in the true sense. Nothing, short of the experience, can prepare you for this type of struggle because you think and act differently under this kind of stress. You cannot simulate this no matter how hard to try.
In short, I think that martial arts go a long way to condition you for the fight and I am a firm believer that everyone should practice a martial art to better themselves. But as for the fight itself, martial arts do not really compare to actual combat, and nor should one assume so. There is no comparison really. You won't figure this out until you experience it. I personally hope that you do not have to.
J.E. Sarge
Crusader Monk Sword Scabbards and Customizations
www.crusadermonk.com
"But lack of documentation, especially for such early times, is not to be considered as evidence of non-existance." - Ewart Oakeshott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic